[X] My Assistant

[eidolon]

Wounded Ronnin, Hermit: Knock it off.

[Moon-Hawk]

Hey look, Shadowrun!
What about arcologies? An arcology is big, but it few people actually come in and out, and those who do come through much more controllable checkpoints than some flimsy border. Arcologies have walls.
In an environment the size and "controllability" of an arcology, would "no guns" (or extremely few, so few that even criminals have a very hard time getting them) actually become an achievable option?
Could you use a desktop forge and some kitchen chemistry to make a passable firearm?

[KarmaInferno]

You could probably cook up a zip gun with household materials even without a forge.

Actually getting propellant would be problematic, unless you have access to chemicals. If you do, though, perhaps from gardening supplies, you could probably cook up some black powder.

It'd be likely a firearm only good for a couple of shots, however. Probably not all that different than French resistance had early on during WWII. Really crude stuff.

WITH a forge, you could turn out really nice firearms. With plastics tech by the 2060s, probably tough enough to stand up to a decent amount of use, too.

Again, however, it's getting propellant that's the issue. In an arcology it's likely the chemicals needed will be monitored fairly well.


-karma

[nezumi]

Okay, I'll try to post this again...

While it would be hypothetically possible to restrict guns (and more importantly, ammunition), I don't think it would work, simply because you have all the upper management people who think the rules don't apply to them, and will go out of their way to make sure that's the case.

However, ultimately, I feel like gun control would be rather irrelevant in arcologies. With such a high population density, conventional violent crime is going to be very low. There aren't dark alleys to rob people in, and even if there were, where would the guy run? Guns won't be the weapon of choice in massacres (like Virginia Tech). The restrictive nature of arcologies means demolitions or gases (both available cheap on the street) will be more effective with less risk, and the good guys having guns doesn't help much to stop that. Having guns to rebel against a tyrranical government won't help much when the arc already has guys in military-grade gear on every corner and cameras in every room. Hunting? Yeah, right. So neither side is going to especially feel like gun control is such a hot issue any more. The exception would be for when travelling outside of the arcology. We're led to believe that self defense is pretty common in Shadowrun, so most people would have guns (or something similar) and they just wouldn't have any cause to use them once in the arcology itself.

[nezumi]

To take it on a different spin, I DO think gun control will be an issue for the general public - but more like how it was forty years ago. The laws in place are meant to make it easy for rich humans to get guns (you must have a SIN and must pay the $200 license fee) and difficult for the poor metahumans to get them. The UCAS won't want guns banned, they just want to take guns out of the hands of the have-nots and put them in the hands of the haves (but I'm sure it would still be called 'sensible restrictions on firearms').

[Serial_Peacemake...]

Well I suppose in ARCs since this is all short range you could get away with some kind of air gun with say a scuba tank to give you the pressure. I know paintball guns hurt like a when you get hit, and I could see a bit higher pressure, and some kind of say arrows as projectiles to give it the ability to kill. Though honestly in a gun free enviroments Mages and Adepts are probably going to reign like demi-gods over the gunless schmucks.

[Larme]

To take it on a different spin, I DO think gun control will be an issue for the general public - but more like how it was forty years ago. The laws in place are meant to make it easy for rich humans to get guns (you must have a SIN and must pay the $200 license fee) and difficult for the poor metahumans to get them. The UCAS won't want guns banned, they just want to take guns out of the hands of the have-nots and put them in the hands of the haves (but I'm sure it would still be called 'sensible restrictions on firearms').

I think the exact opposite. Rich people don't live outside the law in SR4. They live cozy warm, ensconced in an impregnable fortress made entirely out of the law. The law, and a sensor net that would make the NSA drown in its own drool. Everywhere a rich person goes will be monitored by live security riggers, automated drones, and astral overwatch. AAA sec zones are not places where you can just walk through with a gun without suffering consequences. But you don't need a gun. There's a whole monolithic system in place to keep the guns out, so the rich don't need guns to protect them. Certainly UCAS will want to disarm the poor metas as much as possible, but those people are pretty much automatically disqualified by being largely SINless. For actual citizens, I don't think class will determine whether you can get a weapon, because getting a weapon leaves a paper trail. They don't need to worry about you using legitimately registered guns for crimes, because if you do they will know it was you.

[Critias]

I wouldn't see that many rich folks packing themselves, just like you don't hear about very many Hollywood types and politicians carrying around their own guns for day-to-day nonsense today. They have people to do that for them (and their people will be allowed to carry where no one else's people could, be it in an Arcology, a super-secure research lab, what-have-you).

One of the shrillest anti-gun celebrities in real life insisted a school make special provisions for her child's bodyguards to carry on school property (otherwise a federal offense), all while famously hand-wringing over how horrible Columbine was and barking about how crazy it was for anyone to propose teachers or faculty members or CCW-permit holders to want to be armed in a school. They aren't normal people like the rest of us and they don't have to follow the rules -- but they're much more likely to have professional security breaking those rules on their behalf, rather than packing a gun themselves.

[CanRay]

It's a little long, but a friend of mine wrote out an excellent example on this point of view, and a likely manner in which a Shadowrun Corporation might try to enforce it in a round-about manner: The Gorilla Journalist Goes Ballistic

Personally, it's one of the funniest reads I've had in a long time, and I love the ending.

[nezumi]

I think the exact opposite. Rich people don't live outside the law in SR4. They live cozy warm, ensconced in an impregnable fortress made entirely out of the law.

Why would someone who regularly breaks the law want to stay cosily ensconced in the law? If I'm a rich person and I want to go have sex with six-year-old orphans, capture protected animals for testing, shoot at humans for fun, do BTLs, beat my wife, blackmail my coworkers, steal data from competitors, etc. etc., wouldn't it then behoove me to make sure I have my own, private security setup and NOT depend on a security setup that is either managed by the corporation beyond my control or, even worse, by the 'law'?

Critias - I'm curious, who is the celebrity you are speaking of?

[Larme]

Why would someone who regularly breaks the law want to stay cosily ensconced in the law? If I'm a rich person and I want to go have sex with six-year-old orphans, capture protected animals for testing, shoot at humans for fun, do BTLs, beat my wife, blackmail my coworkers, steal data from competitors, etc. etc., wouldn't it then behoove me to make sure I have my own, private security setup and NOT depend on a security setup that is either managed by the corporation beyond my control or, even worse, by the 'law'?

Most corporate sharks won't do any of those things. Or if they do, they will have some sort of black hole in the security net - they'll be surrounded by sensors detecting unsavory types, but those sensors will not be looking inwards. Kinda like Michael Jackson - he had a security camera so he could see the door to his bedroom, but there was no camera watching what was going on inside.

[Method]

IIRC its Rosie O'Donnall.

[nezumi]

Most corporate sharks won't do any of those things.

Then you play a much kinder version of Shadowrun than I do...

Or if they do, they will have some sort of black hole in the security net - they'll be surrounded by sensors detecting unsavory types, but those sensors will not be looking inwards. Kinda like Michael Jackson - he had a security camera so he could see the door to his bedroom, but there was no camera watching what was going on inside.

Ah, but that doesn't help much if they can't get their stuff past the front door. And that is precisely what I'm talking about.

These rich guys don't WANT to be on camera, and in fact, they probably distinctly want NOT to be on camera. Just like they don't want to get put in jail if they are caught doing something naughty. Hence, their goal isn't to make 1984 (really, who profited from 1984? At least in Brave New World there was a tiny number of people who did very, very well for themselves), but to effectively return to colonialism. I was born into this position, therefore I can do whatever I want. Nothing you can do can get you to my position. And to preserve this, I am justified in denying you any rights appropriate.

[Larme]

I think you mispercieve who corpers are. Corporations are not about nepotism. That certainly exists, but corporations are about the primacy of the free market. The bottom line rules everything. Birthrights are antithetical to the bottom line, because they almost guarantee that some really incompetent people will get stuck in the high ranks, and that is bad for business. Corporations aren't kingdoms, they are enterprises. Again, that's not to say there isn't nepotism. But people don't rise to the highest echelons without deserving it. They might deserve it by being bad people, what with backstabbing and maneuvering and suchnot. But they are not looking for a nouvlesse world where they can be decadent not have any rules apply to them. They are looking for a world where any corporate climber can rise to a position of power, and every climber is trying to climb on every other climber. There are strict rules, but they're there to be broken -- those who best use the rules against their compatriots, and don't get caught breaking them, are the ones that deserve power.

If they had a system like you describe, they would all get drugged up and their corps would tank and they would not rule the world, because some leaner, meaner, non-high adversary would gobble them up. Of course the high-ups want to act to preserve their positions, but the free market will take control. In the free market, those corps with worthless people at the top will not survive. There is no global corporate conspiracy to preserve privilege for the privileged. That would imply that the top corpers can actually stand to conspire with each other. They can't. That's why instead of having a monolithic global government, Shadowrun has a balkanized corp-eat-corp world where, every single day, the corps send waves of hired killers against each other in secret. Each corp is engaged in a cold war with each other corp, and the one that doesn't stay sharp is the one that will topple and be devoured. And the one that doesn't stay sharp is the one that you describe: where the leadership feels like it has special rights and keeps others out. The smart corp will use aggressive recruitment programs to sift every metahuman it can through its sieve, hoping to find some gold nuggets who will work for the corp and give it a competitive edge with their superior performance. Class is nothing. Everything is merit, and ruthlesness, and a healthy obsession with profit. Of course people born into corporate families will have a much easier time, because they'll go to the right school, learn the right skills, get the right headware (in beta or delta grade) and be in the best position to compete for the jobs they want. But the real king of Shadowrun is not some insular class of bluebloods. It's the harsh mistress of the free market itself.

[Kremlin KOA]

I mean plan B is to accept that the US has an ingrained culture of violence. It's not a threat that I feel is actually likely. The last report of an armed home invasion in the ACT I can find is from 2003 and that was with a baseball bat. If I shot that guy i'd be arrested for assault for a deadly weapon because shotting him is a grossly disproportionate response.


http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi158.html

Breakdown of crime by weapon type for those that are intrested.

'
Plan C
accept that Australia has a much higher rate of violent crime than the US

EDIT: fixing link

[Kremlin KOA]

I take it you've never seen someone who got hit in the head with a baseball bat? It's not disproportional at all.

Ironically in Australian police culture, a baseball bat is a foreign sporting implement, not a deadly weapon

[Kremlin KOA]

Sorry, no. No European country (all of which have rather strict gun control laws) comes even close to US levels of gun-related violence. With Third World shitholes, other factors enter the equasion too, like failure of the state to ensure it's power monopoly (hello Pakistan!) or crack down on armed militias that go afterr their own population (hello Sudan!), but in states roughly comparable to the US in terms of wealth and social structure, stricter gun control equals less gun-related crimes.

Strawman fallacy

Even if less guns = less gun related crimes
the real question is do less guns mean less violent crime

to give you a hypothetical
city a has 200 gun based murders and 50 knife based murders a year
new gun laws remove many guns
2 years later city a has 20 gun murders a year, and 250 knife murders a year

see the problem yet?

[Kremlin KOA]

Uh-Hunh. In an easily accessible place wheree you can draw it the instant you think someone is breaking into your home, but your kid can't. Please explain how you do that.

Shoulder holster?

[Method]

Kremlin: your link above is broken.

But here's some fun with numbers for any interested. Be sure to use the "per capita" tab.

[Larme]

The admins came on and told you guys to knock off the vitriolic argument about RL gun control. It might be a good idea to not ignore them.

[Critias]

Critias - I'm curious, who is the celebrity you are speaking of?

IIRC its Rosie O'Donnall.

*gives Method a gold star*

The same moonbat that says she was so upset over Columbine that she started sleeping hanging upside down by her ankles, who organized the Not-Quite-Really-A-Million-But-Close-Enough Mom March, who lied to Tom Selleck about how an interview on her show would stay on-topic to plug a new film of his (but then ambushed him and blamed him for the NRA and the NRA for Columbine) and all sorts of other anti-gun nonsense... then asked for her bodyguard to be allowed to carry a firearm on elementary school property, because she and her family deserves to be protected by a firearm (it's just everyone else's family that shouldn't have them). I can't carry when I go back to college in the fall, I can't carry once I start teaching when I go to work every day -- but her family can be armed on school property.

[Larme]

Eew, she made a family? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

[Critias]

Adopted three or four, and got her wife turkey-basted with another.

[CanRay]

Is one of those kids the Trendy African Kids that seem to be the popular accessory for celebraties today? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[hobgoblin]

i feel conflicted as i could not help myself but laugh at canray's comment...